Who are the Greatest warriors in history

[Canek]

regulus, you only have to see the huge portion of american territory the incas conquered to realize how great they were as warriors. and they did it without horses or developed weapons.

 

[Regulus]

regulus, you only have to see the huge portion of american territory the incas conquered to realize how great they were as warriors. and they did it without horses or developed weapons.

Absolutely. Now please use the same logic to the topic at hand. It will not be difficult to conclude that a city-state that maintained its position and had so much influence among other strong city-states, not to mention the citations of so many who were their opponents, was fortunate to have such courageous and selfless soldiers.

Also, don't forget that one of their opponents was the Persian Empire. The last time I checked, they were non-Greek.

 

[Canek]

greece is/was a little state. and the spartans didn't conquered persia. alexander the great did it with soldiers from different parts of the world, not only greeks.

 

[Regulus]

greece is/was a little state. and the spartans didn't conquered persia. alexander the great did it with soldiers from different parts of the world, not only greeks.

You're just not thinking here.

All the city-states were very strong and densely populated. One state being able to have such influence among these indicates a measure of strength. All of those states recognized the qualities of these people.

Also, who told you that I said that they conquered Persia? Or are you trying to create a false argument of mine to rebut?

Spartan soldiers engaged the Persians on a number of occasions.
At Thermopylae, they were the main contingent to remain against vastly superior numbers, they inflicted tremendous casualties.

At Platea a year later, they led the coalition that defeated the Persians.

Years later, they comprised a large part to the force that performed strongly in battle against Artaxerses and returned as a force after the generals were killed by treachery.

Your opposition appears to be without sense. Are you one to argue that it is possible to jump into a lake without getting wet?

 

[Regulus]

I cleary am weary of arguing the obvious, but it should be noted that the city-state in question always was trying to avoid being involved in events outside of its immediate area. Even when it did start getting invoved, it was never to create an empire, just to get friendly governments into other city-states and to keep cities like Athens from becoming all-powerful

 

[LeBrok]

not only relative to the indigenious americans... they were the greatest warriors of any of the cultures world wide, imo.

they didn't have armors, shields or developed weapons and still achieved a lot of things. the pre-colombine civilizations of america were the greatest warriors in history.

Then the Spain have sent few thousands of not so brave warriors to America. They conquered millions of bravest Aztecs and Inca's warriors.
So, how important the bravery was on a battle field?
Also, the thousands conquering millions, is the reason why Aztecs and Incas are not listed as best warriors in the poll.
Lets vote with facts and not the feelings.

 

[Triskel]

European knights

 

[Canek]

lebrok, spaniards did NOT conquered millions of aztecs and incas... they had the help of other amerindian tribes who hated the aztecs and incas and fought on the spanish side... besides, spaniards had better weapons and horses, that doesn't make them better than the pre-columbine civilizations.

aztecs and incas were only defeated by a more developed civilization, that doesn't make them a worse warriors than the europeans. they should have been included in this eurocentrist poll.

 

[sparkey]

European knights

OK, so you picked knights, and I picked Swiss pikes. How did that turn out? Oh, yeah... the Battle of Laupen. The Swiss weren't seriously challenged as the best infantry in the world until they started getting copycats and gunpowder turned out to be their weakness. But when it was just Swiss mercenaries vs. knights, the situation certainly didn't favor the knights...

 

[Regulus]

lebrok, spaniards did NOT conquered millions of aztecs and incas... they had the help of other amerindian tribes who hated the aztecs and incas and fought on the spanish side... besides, spaniards had better weapons and horses, that doesn't make them better than the pre-columbine civilizations.

aztecs and incas were only defeated by a more developed civilization, that doesn't make them a worse warriors than the europeans. they should have been included in this eurocentrist poll.

Caneck, I don't think that anyone here will dispute the accomplishments of the Aztecs and Peruvians. Would you feel better if we just all jumped in and agreed that those people were the best warriors ever?

Once we are set on that, how do we go about ranking those two?
Which is number one and which is number two? maybe tied?

 

[Canek]

regulus i'm not asking people to agree with my opinions about aztecs and incas, of course. you know opinions are like ******* everyone got one.

but yes, i do expect people to agree that pre-columbine civilizations should have been included in this poll which is too much eurocentrist.

 

[Antigone]

aztecs and incas were only defeated by a more developed civilization, that doesn't make them a worse warriors than the europeans. they should have been included in this eurocentrist poll.

Well it is not exactly a eurocentrist poll, have another look. But it IS a European forum, you really couldn't expect otherwise.

However any civilisation and their warriors can only be judged within the context of their own, and within the context of their own time. I don't understand how any can be compared successfully with warriors of another continent that is entirely different in almost every way.

 

[Dale Cooper]

I had noted the same earlier on, but I would use Hoplites in general.

Spartans were probably the best as far as states go, but other Greek states also had some excellent heavy infantry.

Yes I agree, but ... somehow maybe it's better to say just Spartans because they were what they were

 

[Atilla]

Spartans are the Greatest Warriors the World has known definitively. The life of a Spartan male was a life of discipline, self-denial, and simplicity. The Spartans viewed themselves as the true inheritors of the Greek tradition. They did not surround themselves with luxuries, expensive foods, or opportunities for leisure. And this, I think, is the key to understanding the Spartans. While the Athenians and many others thought the Spartans were insane, the life of the Spartans seemed to hark back to a more basic way of life. Discipline, simplicity, and self-denial always remained ideals in the Greek and Roman worlds; civilization was often seen as bringing disorder, ennervation, weakness, and a decline in moral values. The Spartan, however, could point to Spartan society and argue that moral values and human courage and strength was as great as it was before civilization. Spartan society, then, exercised a profound pull on the surrounding city-states who admired the simplicity, discipline, and order of Spartan life.

 

[ottomanempire]

You can't compare an ancient civilization, like the Assyrians who were the best warriors of their time. And the Mongols, who came 1500 years later.

 

[Knovas]

I voted for the others category:

Spartans were great, but also pre-Christian Romans were very furious warriors. Extremely hard.

 

[zanipolo]

I voted for the others category:

Spartans were great, but also pre-Christian Romans were very furious warriors. Extremely hard.

Vikings - from greenland to the black sea , conquered a lot, left nothing

Prussians under frederick the great, beating 4 great super powers at the same time, and winning

Confederates - lack of manpower cost them the war

Romans - won on discipline

Spartans, excellent on a small scale

 

[weissmacht]

The group I am chossing may not be the number 1 greates but they should be in the top 5 and I can see on this forum and pol they have been greatly undermised and forgotten.The tribes of North-Western Europe were extremely talented and fierce warriors.This ios my best argument plainly-the Germanic and Celtic peoples were constanyl at war with Rome-the greatest Empire of all of European history.Now even though these tribes didnt have the organization the Romans did they stil managed to defeat the Romans in MANY well known battles.The Teutoberg forest is just one example.They won thatbattle simply becuase of their fighting skills.The Romans were excellant fighter in OPEN battle and thier formations but in the Forest with more enclosed fighting and more personal skils needed they were wiped out by the tribes of northwest Europe.This has happend in Scotland in Britian in Germania and numerous examples show it in history.Plus from time to time these tribes acutallly did win victories against the Romans in open battle too.So they had the skills to defeat the most powerful Empire on Earth both on the Romans terms and thier own.They only lacked the organization and unity of the empires of the nation-states of the south.These tribes Germanic and Celtic were infamous for petty quarrels among themselves and a total lack of unity.Even the few times they were unted such as with Arminius or Vercingetorix or even Boudicca this unity didnt last long at all.They had the personal fighting skills and even thier own formations like the shield wall or the Boar's head triangles but they didnt have any real cohesive unity and organization-everman wanted to be the top dog and no one wanted to take orders basically.Plus petty tribal differances from the Ancient past never really changed.They had the skills to defeat the Romans in a one on one fight warrior against warrior-and also occasionally in open battle formation too so if they already had the true skills could easily defeat the Romans just from that if they HAVE HAD the right unity and organiztion such as the Romans did then the Celtic and Germanic tribes would have gone much much further and could have easily defeated the Romans-the greates empire there was at the time.They already could defeat them even though they didnt have the organiztion-so if they DID have the same organiztion as the Romans then without a doubt they could have deafeated the Romans much much more longtermPlus the fal of the Roman empire is simply becuase many barbarian tribes attacked Rome at the same time.Mongals in the east Slavs-Germanic tribes from the north etc.....The Romans were too busy fighting everyone else the tribes from the north invaded rome and there was no one there to defend it.Basically the Barbarian tribes of all of Europe outsmarted the Romans......and brought the Empire to its knees.Proof-that if there was actual unity and organization and cooperation among the Barbarian tribes of Europe then they could easily deafeat the great city-states of southern europe and even bring down the greatest military power on earth at the time

 

[weissmacht]

Plus-when the Germanic nations actually adopted some of the Roman ways-they ended up creating the single most greates and powerful cultural and military machine in ALL of Europe-The middle ages of Europe,the Crusades the Knights of Europe Feudalism etc...the new germanic power houses England France German states Prussia and muchmuch more all became the most influential and most powerful nations of the middle ages-they are all basically Germanic nations who took many influences fom the Romans and used it in thier own way.The Normans,Franks,Saxons,Lombards,and alll the rest-the entire culture we know today as medieval Europe was based on somewhat Romanized-Germanic cultures and peoples.

 

[JKU]

Yes but THE Musketeers never existed =)

d'Artagnan was a real person. They were known as Musketeers because they used muskets, as cavalry they also used swords